Validity and reliability in research pdf

Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2021 11:23:44 PM Posted by Amancay P. - 25.03.2021 and pdf, edition pdf 5 Comments

validity and reliability in research pdf

File Name: validity and reliability in research .zip

Size: 1900Kb

Published: 25.03.2021

Published on July 3, by Fiona Middleton. Revised on June 26,

To browse Academia. Skip to main content. By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. To learn more, view our Privacy Policy.

Assignment: Reliability and Validity in Research

In general practice, qualitative research contributes as significantly as quantitative research, in particular regarding psycho-social aspects of patient-care, health services provision, policy setting, and health administrations.

In contrast to quantitative research, qualitative research as a whole has been constantly critiqued, if not disparaged, by the lack of consensus for assessing its quality and robustness. This article illustrates with five published studies how qualitative research can impact and reshape the discipline of primary care, spiraling out from clinic-based health screening to community-based disease monitoring, evaluation of out-of-hours triage services to provincial psychiatric care pathways model and finally, national legislation of core measures for children's healthcare insurance.

Fundamental concepts of validity, reliability, and generalizability as applicable to qualitative research are then addressed with an update on the current views and controversies. The essence of qualitative research is to make sense of and recognize patterns among words in order to build up a meaningful picture without compromising its richness and dimensionality. Unlike quantitative research which deals primarily with numerical data and their statistical interpretations under a reductionist, logical and strictly objective paradigm, qualitative research handles nonnumerical information and their phenomenological interpretation, which inextricably tie in with human senses and subjectivity.

While human emotions and perspectives from both subjects and researchers are considered undesirable biases confounding results in quantitative research, the same elements are considered essential and inevitable, if not treasurable, in qualitative research as they invariable add extra dimensions and colors to enrich the corpus of findings. However, the issue of subjectivity and contextual ramifications has fueled incessant controversies regarding yardsticks for quality and trustworthiness of qualitative research results for healthcare.

In many ways, qualitative research contributes significantly, if not more so than quantitative research, to the field of primary care at various levels. Five qualitative studies are chosen to illustrate how various methodologies of qualitative research helped in advancing primary healthcare, from novel monitoring of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease COPD via mobile-health technology,[ 1 ] informed decision for colorectal cancer screening,[ 2 ] triaging out-of-hours GP services,[ 3 ] evaluating care pathways for community psychiatry[ 4 ] and finally prioritization of healthcare initiatives for legislation purposes at national levels.

Recruiting COPD patients who were given tele-health devices that monitored lung functions, Williams et al. Such positive findings were in contrast to previous studies, which opined that elderly patients were often challenged by operating computer tablets,[ 6 ] or, conversing with the tele-health software.

These findings suggested room for improvement for family physicians to better engage their patients in recommending preventative care.

Faced with various models of out-of-hours triage services for GP consultations, Egbunike et al. In UK, a care pathways model for community psychiatry had been introduced but its benefits were unclear. Khandaker et al. Finally, at the US national level, Mangione-Smith et al. These core measures were made transparent for public opinion and later passed on for full legislation, hence illustrating the impact of qualitative research upon social welfare and policy improvement.

Given the diverse genera and forms of qualitative research, there is no consensus for assessing any piece of qualitative research work. Various approaches have been suggested, the two leading schools of thoughts being the school of Dixon-Woods et al.

By identifying commonalities of qualitative research, Dixon-Woods produced a checklist of questions for assessing clarity and appropriateness of the research question; the description and appropriateness for sampling, data collection and data analysis; levels of support and evidence for claims; coherence between data, interpretation and conclusions, and finally level of contribution of the paper.

These criteria foster the 10 questions for the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for qualitative studies. In brief, every step of the research logistics from theory formation, design of study, sampling, data acquisition and analysis to results and conclusions has to be validated if it is transparent or systematic enough.

In this manner, both the research process and results can be assured of high rigor and robustness. Same for quantitative research, quality for qualitative research can be assessed in terms of validity, reliability, and generalizability.

Whether the research question is valid for the desired outcome, the choice of methodology is appropriate for answering the research question, the design is valid for the methodology, the sampling and data analysis is appropriate, and finally the results and conclusions are valid for the sample and context.

In assessing validity of qualitative research, the challenge can start from the ontology and epistemology of the issue being studied, e. Set off in different pathways, qualitative research regarding the individual's wellbeing will be concluded with varying validity. For sampling, procedures and methods must be appropriate for the research paradigm and be distinctive between systematic,[ 17 ] purposeful[ 18 ] or theoretical adaptive sampling[ 19 , 20 ] where the systematic sampling has no a priori theory, purposeful sampling often has a certain aim or framework and theoretical sampling is molded by the ongoing process of data collection and theory in evolution.

For data extraction and analysis, several methods were adopted to enhance validity, including 1 st tier triangulation of researchers and 2 nd tier triangulation of resources and theories ,[ 17 , 21 ] well-documented audit trail of materials and processes,[ 22 , 23 , 24 ] multidimensional analysis as concept- or case-orientated[ 25 , 26 ] and respondent verification.

In quantitative research, reliability refers to exact replicability of the processes and the results. In qualitative research with diverse paradigms, such definition of reliability is challenging and epistemologically counter-intuitive. Hence, the essence of reliability for qualitative research lies with consistency.

Silverman[ 29 ] proposed five approaches in enhancing the reliability of process and results: Refutational analysis, constant data comparison, comprehensive data use, inclusive of the deviant case and use of tables. As data were extracted from the original sources, researchers must verify their accuracy in terms of form and context with constant comparison,[ 27 ] either alone or with peers a form of triangulation.

Most qualitative research studies, if not all, are meant to study a specific issue or phenomenon in a certain population or ethnic group, of a focused locality in a particular context, hence generalizability of qualitative research findings is usually not an expected attribute.

However, with rising trend of knowledge synthesis from qualitative research via meta-synthesis, meta-narrative or meta-ethnography, evaluation of generalizability becomes pertinent. A pragmatic approach to assessing generalizability for qualitative studies is to adopt same criteria for validity: That is, use of systematic sampling, triangulation and constant comparison, proper audit and documentation, and multi-dimensional theory.

Despite various measures to enhance or ensure quality of qualitative studies, some researchers opined from a purist ontological and epistemological angle that qualitative research is not a unified, but ipso facto diverse field,[ 8 ] hence any attempt to synthesize or appraise different studies under one system is impossible and conceptually wrong.

From a realism standpoint, Porter then proposes multiple and open approaches for validity in qualitative research that incorporate parallel perspectives[ 43 , 44 ] and diversification of meanings. In summary, the three gold criteria of validity, reliability and generalizability apply in principle to assess quality for both quantitative and qualitative research, what differs will be the nature and type of processes that ontologically and epistemologically distinguish between the two.

Source of Support: Nil. Conflict of Interest: None declared. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U.

J Family Med Prim Care. Lawrence Leung 1, 2. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Address for correspondence: Prof. E-mail: ac. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract In general practice, qualitative research contributes as significantly as quantitative research, in particular regarding psycho-social aspects of patient-care, health services provision, policy setting, and health administrations. Keywords: Controversies, generalizability, primary care research, qualitative research, reliability, validity. Nature of Qualitative Research versus Quantitative Research The essence of qualitative research is to make sense of and recognize patterns among words in order to build up a meaningful picture without compromising its richness and dimensionality.

Impact of Qualitative Research upon Primary Care In many ways, qualitative research contributes significantly, if not more so than quantitative research, to the field of primary care at various levels. Overall Criteria for Quality in Qualitative Research Given the diverse genera and forms of qualitative research, there is no consensus for assessing any piece of qualitative research work. Reliability In quantitative research, reliability refers to exact replicability of the processes and the results.

Generalizability Most qualitative research studies, if not all, are meant to study a specific issue or phenomenon in a certain population or ethnic group, of a focused locality in a particular context, hence generalizability of qualitative research findings is usually not an expected attribute.

Food for Thought Despite various measures to enhance or ensure quality of qualitative studies, some researchers opined from a purist ontological and epistemological angle that qualitative research is not a unified, but ipso facto diverse field,[ 8 ] hence any attempt to synthesize or appraise different studies under one system is impossible and conceptually wrong.

Footnotes Source of Support: Nil. References 1. Br J Gen Pract. Physician colorectal cancer screening recommendations: An examination based on informed decision making. Patient Educ Couns. Streamline triage and manage user expectations: Lessons from a qualitative study of GP out-of-hours services.

Evaluating care pathways for community psychiatry in England: A qualitative study. J Eval Clin Pract. Identifying children's health care quality measures for Medicaid and CHIP: An evidence-informed, publicly transparent expert process. Acad Pediatr. Patient difficulty using tablet computers to screen in primary care.

J Gen Intern Med. Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the Whole System Demonstrator trial: A qualitative study. The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care. Sage Publications; Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research; pp.

Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research.

Qual Health Res. Sale JE. How to assess rigour…or not in qualitative papers. Meyrick J. What is good qualitative research? J Health Psychol. Quality in qualitative research. Med J Aust. Waterman AS. The humanistic psychology-positive psychology divide: Contrasts in philosophical foundations.

Am Psychol. Finfgeld-Connett D. Generalizability and transferability of meta-synthesis research findings. J Adv Nurs. Adm Policy Ment Health. Coyne IT. Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? Becker PH.

Reliability vs validity: what’s the difference?

In general practice, qualitative research contributes as significantly as quantitative research, in particular regarding psycho-social aspects of patient-care, health services provision, policy setting, and health administrations. In contrast to quantitative research, qualitative research as a whole has been constantly critiqued, if not disparaged, by the lack of consensus for assessing its quality and robustness. This article illustrates with five published studies how qualitative research can impact and reshape the discipline of primary care, spiraling out from clinic-based health screening to community-based disease monitoring, evaluation of out-of-hours triage services to provincial psychiatric care pathways model and finally, national legislation of core measures for children's healthcare insurance. Fundamental concepts of validity, reliability, and generalizability as applicable to qualitative research are then addressed with an update on the current views and controversies. The essence of qualitative research is to make sense of and recognize patterns among words in order to build up a meaningful picture without compromising its richness and dimensionality. Unlike quantitative research which deals primarily with numerical data and their statistical interpretations under a reductionist, logical and strictly objective paradigm, qualitative research handles nonnumerical information and their phenomenological interpretation, which inextricably tie in with human senses and subjectivity.


PDF | This paper discussed how the applying of Rasch Model in validity and reliability of research instruments. Three sets of research.


validity and reliability in research pdf

Published on July 3, by Fiona Middleton. Revised on June 26, Reliability and validity are concepts used to evaluate the quality of research.

Instrument is the general term that researchers use for a measurement device survey, test, questionnaire, etc.

Validity and reliability are two important factors to consider when developing and testing any instrument e. Attention to these considerations helps to insure the quality of your measurement and of the data collected for your study. Validity refers to the degree to which an instrument accurately measures what it intends to measure. Three common types of validity for researchers and evaluators to consider are content, construct, and criterion validities. Often times, when developing, modifying, and interpreting the validity of a given instrument, rather than view or test each type of validity individually, researchers and evaluators test for evidence of several different forms of validity, collectively e.

Validity is the extent to which a concept , conclusion or measurement is well-founded and likely corresponds accurately to the real world. The validity of a measurement tool for example, a test in education is the degree to which the tool measures what it claims to measure. In psychometrics , validity has a particular application known as test validity : "the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores" "as entailed by proposed uses of tests". It is generally accepted that the concept of scientific validity addresses the nature of reality in terms of statistical measures and as such is an epistemological and philosophical issue as well as a question of measurement.

Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline. Some features of the site may not work correctly. DOI: Heale and A. Heale , A. Evidence-based practice includes, in part, implementation of the findings of well-conducted quality research studies.

Main office

 Проинструктировать. Относительно. - Относительно его поездки. Я отправил Дэвида в Испанию. ГЛАВА 11 Испания.

 Вы должны отключить ТРАНСТЕКСТ, - напомнила Сьюзан. Стратмор отсутствующе смотрел на стену. - Коммандер. Выключите. Трудно даже представить, что происходит там, внизу. - Я пробовал, - прошептал Стратмор еле слышно. Ей еще не приходилось слышать, чтобы он так .

Затем она, наверное, вмонтирует алгоритм в защищенный чип, и через пять лет все компьютеры будут выпускаться с предустановленным чипом Цифровой крепости. Никакой коммерческий производитель и мечтать не мог о создании шифровального чипа, потому что нормальные алгоритмы такого рода со временем устаревают. Но Цифровая крепость никогда не устареет: благодаря функции меняющегося открытого текста она выдержит людскую атаку и не выдаст ключа. Новый стандарт шифрования. Отныне и навсегда. Шифры, которые невозможно взломать.

COMMENT 5

  • In broad terms, validity refers to the degree to which an instrument measures what it is intended to measure (Taherdoost ). Reliability, on the. Jessika L. - 25.03.2021 at 19:41
  • Issues of Reliability and Validity. Barbara A. - 27.03.2021 at 14:00
  • Validity implies the extent to which the research instrument measures, what it is intended to measure. Robert S. - 01.04.2021 at 13:06
  • An introduction to group work practice pdf tnpsc group 4 model question paper with answers in tamil pdf download Maya T. - 02.04.2021 at 00:33
  • To browse Academia. Guiplannedma - 03.04.2021 at 18:13

LEAVE A COMMENT